The Dish

Here’s a useful, brief historical analysis of why the U.S. decided not to take out Zarqawi in 2002. It was a mistake, in retrospect. But an understandable one.

Dublin, New Hampshire, 5 pm.

Is it getting bigger? Are the heretic-hunters and Michael Moore fans getting less intolerant? Jeff Jarvis hopes so.

The polls weren’t so fickle in the Second World War, despite Tony Snow’s comparison. Of course, that could be because less of the brutality was reported by a treacherous MSM; but it seems to me that that might be counterbalanced by the fact that far more Americans had loved ones directly in the line of fire then than do now. It could also be that Americans respond to steady, competent, candid leadership in wartime. And they also respond to its opposite.

A reader reminds me of an excellent piece by Vladimir Bukovsky I once linked to. I know that some conservatives don’t want to be reminded by former victims of Soviet Communism why torture is wrong and self-defeating, but others haven’t forgotten what conservatism used to stand for. As Bukovsky put it,

"if Vice President Cheney is right and that some "cruel, inhumane or degrading" (CID) treatment of captives is a necessary tool for winning the war on terrorism, then the war is lost already."

Indeed, as someone might say. But here’s the real money quote from Bukovsky’s piece, describing the effects of bureaucratized torture on an intelligence service:

"When torture is condoned, these rare talented people leave the service, having been outstripped by less gifted colleagues with their quick-fix methods, and the service itself degenerates into a playground for sadists. Thus, in its heyday, Joseph Stalin’s notorious NKVD (the Soviet secret police) became nothing more than an army of butchers terrorizing the whole country but incapable of solving the simplest of crimes."

My reader comments:

His article reminded me of a joke told to me by an Egyptian friend working for the UN. The Intelligence services of the US, UK and Egypt decided to have a competition.  The contest was to capture a fox released into the forest, in the shortest time possible. The CIA returned with their fox in 2 hours. MI6 returned in 4 hours.

After 12 hours a search was organized to locate the Egyptian team.  They were found with a rabbit tied to a tree, beating it and yelling: "You’re a fox!"

Let’s not discover what people in countries like Egypt already know – a regime that tortures will break its intelligence service, and lose itself in its own terror.

I fear we may have discovered this already. But it is never too late to change. McCain tried but Cheney over-ruled the Congress and the constitution. So we must try again.

PBS’s examination of vice-president Cheney’s handling of the war on terror is now up at YouTube.

They’re bowing to global pressure to cool it on gays. Money quote:

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, that the 75th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconcilation; and be it further

Resolved, that this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.

This reverses a previous decision at the convention. Father Jake reacts here. It is not for me to comment on prudential decisions made within another denomination. If this avoids schism, maybe it’s defensible. If it allows people to become better used to the idea of faithful gay couples and gay priests, perhaps it’s a good thing. It doesn’t look like a reversal or anything. Just a prudent pause. But I’m open to different interpretations.

A reader writes:

Once again, you’ve overstepped in your denunciation of fundamentalism:

It reminds me of the fundamentalist mindset: because we are on the side of good, and our enemy is evil, we can do no wrong. The ends always justify the means.

I spent the first 21 years of my life firmly esconced in fundamentalist Christianity, and for all its faults, I must say that this mindset is something I never saw; in fact, I heard countless sermons making precisely the opposite point: "Never do evil so that good may come."  Or, as that most reviled of fundamentalists, Bob Jones, once said, "It is never right to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right."  During my student days–at a bastion of fundamentialism–I was a member of an intercollegiate debate team, and our topic one year was on whether violence was justified to overthrow domestic tyranny. There was much discussion as to the ethics of our even debating that topic because, while war against a tyrannical state might be justified, insurrection could never be, in light of St. Paul’s injunction that Christians submit to secular authority–even for the ultimate good of casting off tyranny.

Certainly, there are those such as Pat Robertson who fit the stereotype of the raving fundamentalist you hold dear, and certainly, the disconnect between this President’s actions and his professed Christianity has been in some cases quite jarring. But your habit of painting with such a broad brush lessens your value as a commentator on American political and religious life: you merely confirm the prejudices of your liberal readers and insult those on your right who are either theological fundamentalists or know and love those who are.

The reader has a point. Maybe it is better to say that this mindset is a fundamentalist temptation, made more likely by the certainty and absolutism that fundamentalism fosters, and the inerrancy it often requires and demands of its leaders. The brush exists. It’s just narrower than I described it.

"The discussion is how to put the Democrats in a box without attacking the president," – a Republican aide to the AP.

The discussion is not, it seems, how to deal with immigration. I’m not saying the Democrats are any better. I am saying that Congress seems much more concerned with partisan advantage than with actually grappling with serious issues. And they wonder why their ratings are so low. It’s just as well they’ve rigged the system so they’re re-elected at a 98 percent rate, isn’t it?

I should air another dissent, because there have been so many:

Today has been a very tough day. I feared the worst when I found out about the US soldiers taken by terrorists. I’ve been sick all day thinking about what they must have gone through.
I’m sorry, but reading your description of what the US did to Abu Zubayda did not make me sick. I could only hope that our soldiers were treated so humanely.  Of course, I know they were treated much worse, and were eventually killed.
I think that reasonable people see the difference between us and the terrorists.  Those who don’t would never give us any slack anyways.
Your attempt to use this very sad day to prove some esoteric moral perspective makes me even sicker than I already was.

I feel sick too. All I can say is I just do not believe opposing the torture of prisoners is an "esoteric" moral position. I think it’s the most basic moral position there is. And it requires reiterating precisely when all our emotions are programmed to violate it. As another reader writes:

I don’t think it’s quite right to say that we musn’t lose our moral compass to save civilization. Our moral compass is the linchpin of our civilization.

Another comments:

See, Andrew, you’ve hit upon what, for conservatives, is the unreconcilable paradox of this war: Is whatever America might do in this war permissible and ultimately moral simply because this is America? It is – if your moral legitimacy cannot be questioned, because it is not derived from your actions but from who you are, what you have historically been.

It reminds me of the fundamentalist mindset: because we are on the side of good, and our enemy is evil, we can do no wrong. The ends always justify the means. And for this president, the ends are everything.